[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
From: |
Bruce D'Arcus |
Subject: |
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback |
Date: |
Sun, 2 May 2021 18:18:26 -0400 |
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:59 PM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:
> I'm thinking whether this could make the system more flexible and
> adaptable.
We'd still need to discuss details of course (like including sensible
defaults, etc.) if this were possible, but Denis and I agree that
having a second optional parameter as a function would be ideal.
> And it would remedy the need to come up with all possible
> patterns as it should be easy to add those later. WDYT?
And even more, presumably allow third party developers to come up with them?
Bruce
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2021/05/01
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2021/05/01
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Denis Maier, 2021/05/02
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback,
Bruce D'Arcus <=
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2021/05/02
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2021/05/05
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, M . ‘quintus’ Gülker, 2021/05/05
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2021/05/05
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, M . ‘quintus’ Gülker, 2021/05/06
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Denis Maier, 2021/05/06